Bride-to-be unimpressed with $3k engagement ring demands something pricier

A man has taken to the internet for advice after his new fiancée decided she wasn't happy with the $3,000 engagement ring he bought her.

It's an old tradition that men are supposed to spend around 10 per cent of their salary on an engagement ring.

RELATED: Why Melania Trump has two engagement rings worth $9 million

But given the state of the world at the moment – from the coronavirus pandemic to global economic uncertainty – the man decided to skip that tradition.

Explaining in a Reddit post that 10 per cent of his salary would be around $10,000 to $15,000, the man said he wasn't comfortable spending so much when the future is uncertain.

"I have quite a good job so could easily afford an expensive engagement ring and if I was following the 10% rule then I should spend around 10-15k on the ring," he wrote.

For a daily dose of 9Honey, sign up here to receive our top stories straight to your inbox.

However, four members of his family have already battled COVID-19 this year and one has been laid off, meaning he's been helping out financially.

The company he works for is also expecting layoffs in the new year of up to 150 people, and though he doesn't think his job is at risk, he doesn't want to take any chances.

So he decided to play it safe financially and opt for a cheaper ring, opting for a $3,000 engagement ring with diamonds and a sapphire – his fiancée's birthstone.

At first his choice seemed perfect and his bride-to-be was thrilled with it, but when she showed it off to her mother, things took a nosedive.

"Her mother - a jeweller - called the ring cheap. [Fiancée] has since given it back to me and accused me of undervaluing her and what she does for me," the man said.

"She's a stay at home mum to our 18-month-old, and does the majority of the cooking/cleaning because I work long hours."

The man made sure to clarify that he "pays" his fiancé to stay at home, as it was his idea that she not return to work after giving birth.

RELATED: Proposal on famous bridge gets literally 'crashed' by public

Currently, he pays her a $450 weekly allowance to use as she likes. She also has over $40,000 in savings, according to him.

Now his fiancée is refusing to talk to him, and her parents are accusing him of "treating her like cheap trash" because the ring wasn't worth 10 per cent of his salary.

The man turned to the internet for advice, wondering if he was really in the wrong for choosing a ring that wasn't in line with the 10 per cent tradition.

Most people agreed that a $3,000 ring was still a very pricey pick and his fiancée should be happy with it, but some could see why she was disappointed.

RELATED: Couple's proposal photo labelled 'unoriginal' and 'cheesy'

"If she believes that she's being de-valued because she was given a $3k ring, then she clearly has issues," one user wrote.

Another countered: "I get why she might have been expecting a more expensive ring, but come on. On what planet is a $3k ring cheap!"

Some pointed out that the fiancée was happy with the ring until her mother kicked up a fuss, suggesting there could be "boundary issues" with the man's future mother-in-law.

"The two of you need to decide what is appropriate for you and your situation," one said, adding that the fiancée's mother didn't need to be involved.

"If you are guilty about it or she feels slighted, then the two of you should agree to re-evaluate your circumstances at your fifth anniversary and upgrade her ring then."

One also pointed out that the 10 per cent "rule" was a "marketing ploy invented by the diamond industry" to make people spend more.

They added: "You're being very smart not to spend such a large amount of money right now considering you could be laid off, you have a new baby, and you're financially supporting sick family members."